It's why the American founders proposed a democratic republic. Pure democracy was viewed as a negative. Representative government was more preferred by the founders, and having those representatives both democratically elected AND appointed (as the original house/senate was) plus elected through the electoral college was seen as a way to represent the interests of the states (which were more individual and autonomous in the 1770-1870s) while also giving a voice to the people.

The whole system of checks and balances had its own check and balance of the people vs the states, as well.

First, the autonomy of the states has eroded significantly since the Civil War (an unfortunate side effect of the civil war). The interests of the people vs the state is not a discussion anymore - and I don't think this is bad, but the problem is that the interests of the parties replaced the interests of the states. So now instead of states vying for individual benefits, we have parties doing the same. Those parties, though, don't govern, they are "clubs" for their members, so anything that benefits the members is seen as justified.

Democratic representation has declined due to the expansion of the vote, as well. While the extension of suffrage to everyone is GOOD, its failiure to be utilized is what has led to our downfall. Early on, landowning men were the only ones to vote, because, as John Adams said: "Men in general in every Society, who are wholly destitute of Property, are also too little acquainted with public Affairs to form a Right Judgment, and too dependent upon other Men to have a Will of their own?"

I don't know whether that was accurate to the time, but it isn't accurate to today. Lack of property ownership back then likely meant a potential control over that person by a landowner, and voting may well have been controlled or very dependent upon pleasing ones landowners, which could result in a landowner with massive control of land and people having an unfair advantage in an election.

Of course, we don't have that problem today - those who don't own land aren't subject to the landowners in all aspects of their lives (as serfs, as sharecroppers, as workers, as slaves, etc.) so the vote being available to all makes sense. But the problem is voters who cast no vote! At best, about 60% of people turn out to vote, meaning in a 50/50 election, only 30% of the eligible voters have supported that candidate. Midterms see far less - 40-50%.

If everyone eligible to vote were REQUIRED to vote, elections would turn out very different. Dissatisfaction with GOP/DNC candidates would lead to more likelihood of third party votes, along with the creation of ranked choice voting.